This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Assume that we have a world in which death notes are common. France's laws can't protect you. How will you deal with the threat?
The default assumption about meatspace states is that they control a physical space, have the only say what goes in there, control the inputs and outputs. And because to commit a meatspace crime you have to be in physical proximity to the victim - it means you are at least nominally under said state power. And this arrangement works well and is easy to understand. You kill a man in Reno just to watch him die and then you go to Folsom. To commit a crime you have to overcome the state.
What does the death note change - that you could kill a man in Reno from Uganda, but there is no way the crime can be traced to you (or prevented). You totally bypass the state. In that world dying by death note because you showed your face or told someone your real name - will be classified as death by natural causes - aka stupidity.
Hacking is inevitable feature of the internet. To be able to prevent and police crimes you have to be able to control all of the infrastructure. And this is where my argument comes into play - if the state is incapable by definition to secure the cyberspace - then it is up to the sysadmins - because they have total control over what goes in their networks.
By changing my name in secret.
In any event, if I understand you correctly, your position is that it is utterly impossible to bring someone to justice for international hacking activity and therefore there's no point whatsoever in applying the criminal law to computer hacking. Is that it?
No. Cyber criminals have been brought to trial and convicted. I am saying that due to the way Internet was designed - crime prevention and defense burden is on the victim, because the state has no capacity to prevent the crime.
I don't understand this at all. If a cybercriminal is prosecuted and sent to prison, how does this not prevent crime, both by keeping the cybercriminal away from computers and by deterring those who are considering a cybercrime?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link